Posted by Rzip on January 27, 2001, at 0:15:35
In reply to Re: The article, posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 15:06:01
> Someone mentioned that it isn't exactly a research article. Even though it isn't an outcome study or controlled experiment, and even though it is rather an overview, I think it does contribute to the knowledge base because it steps back, describes the process, names phenomena that occur, reflects on the efficacy of problem solving, etc.This is an article and not a research paper because it violates the essence of the scientific method. See BMJ Volume 315 2 August 1997. I do not know what BMJ stands for, I just have the article, which is titled, "How to read a paper". I use it to help me think through the reading of research papers.
Dr. Bob's article sets the basis for future papers. It is a good reference article about the PB website. When he writes a real paper, all he has to do is reference it. That is if the PB background info. as we know it has circulated to a larger audience by the time he publishes these future research papers.
Why isn't this a research paper, you ask...
First, let me explain a little about the history of the problems with scientific psychiatry. Prior to WWII, people believed that each mental patient should be regarded as an individual (n=1). Since you can not run a study with only one test subject, the scientific method was not applied to psychiatry. After WWII, people began to realize that subjects could be grouped together, and thus null hypotheses could be applied to a certain theory concerning a certain disease. The scientific aspect of psychiatry (as opposed to the Freudian psychoanalysis theory). I am probably not making any sense. The bottom-line is that Dr. Bob's article did not follow Karl Popper's formulation of falsificationism. The falsificationism formulation by Karl Popper states that "A scientist should begin by making conjectures about how the world is and then seek to disprove them...If...a scientist tries diligently to disprove a hypothesis, and fails, the hypothesis gains in stature." (Can J Psychiatry, Vol 41, May 1996). It is from Pg. 227-8 of The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.So, Dr. Bob's article is not a scientific article because the hypotheses if there is one, is very ambigiously phrased: "An online self-group hosted by a mental health professional...is hypothesized to combine the best of both worlds." Let us assume that there is a well-acknowledged reason to form this hypotheses in the cyberpsychology field, what Dr. Bob then fails to do is to go on and illustrate that this particular combo makes a significant difference in the Online mental health field. By the way, I did not understand the wording, "Best of Both Worlds". Ambigious! What worlds? Show me the specific stats that illustrate the benefits of inter-twining the Online Self-Help Group with the Online Mental Health Professional hosted group.
O.K. Here is the main problem. What intrinsic quality are you measuring, Dr. Bob? One variable at a time, remember. For instance, take the SUPPORT character. A research paper should first state the null hypotheses that Online Self-Help group vs. Online group hosted by a Mental Health Professional is equally as supportive as the combo. The paper should then go on to measure the support character within the group. If the Test of Support, let us call it ToS show that the ToS value in the Combo group is significantly higher than that of the Test group as well as the Control group (people who are not engaged in this form of Online communication). Then, the author can reject the null hypotheses and support Dr. Bob's alternative hypotheses that this is indeed the best of both worlds.
Am I making any sense? The bottom-line is that the article by Dr. Bob is a great description of how PB works, but I do not know if it contributes to the scientific library in the Cyberpsychology field.
There is just WAY too much variables in here for this article to even be considered as a research paper. I do not even know where to begin to think through this. So, I came to the conclusion that this is merely a primitive basis for future studies. Besides, it is kind of hard to conduct a research study when the author do not really know his subjects at all. Who knows whether the form of exchanges on PB is reliable or not.
In conclusion, Dr. Bob, who I love dearly wrote an unscientific article about a very complex medium for future therapeutic exchanges. I am sure he realizes this and is seeking for feedback. Beware of what you contribute though...he just might throw you into a future study or publication that he is currently stewing over. By continue to participate on this site, you guys are volunteering (informed or otherwise) to participate in Dr. Bob's research sampling or studies. A word of caution: Don't post another word if you are against the idea of being used. Dr. Bob can be pretty vicious when it comes to research opportunities and such. I mean at this junction, I really wish that he would take the time to be more upfront regarding his future research plans in terms of this site. Even if he does chose to reply, still read between the lines. Once a researcher, always a researcher :-)
- Rzip
poster:Rzip
thread:326
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/356.html